Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Man in the Funny Hat" data-source="post: 4951017" data-attributes="member: 32740">It is a well-noted drawback of alignment that it DOES require that the DM make his interpretations clear to the players before alignment becomes an issue in-game.&nbsp; And once again, alignment may say nothing to YOU about a character, but I and many others have been using alignment without great difficulties to do just that for about 30 years now.&nbsp; Your insistence that it is not useful in this regard is therefore a demonstrable UNTRUTH.&nbsp;&nbsp;Nothing about alignment - with the unfortunate exception of those elements which are tied directly to in-game effects - dictates that a player MUST use it to guide his characters choices.&nbsp; I can put NG on my character sheet at the time of creation and never consider it again.&nbsp; If the DM has any smarts he'll never make an issue of whether my character conforms to any precise &quot;definition&quot; of NG.&nbsp; As long as my character is portrayed reasonably and with reasonable consistency his alignment does indeed serve ME, the player, no particular purpose.&nbsp;On the other hand, I might use that alignment as a CONSTANT reference to assist me in deciding why my character takes or refrains from certain actions.&nbsp; Prof. T. might not have needed alignment to help him create Gandalf.&nbsp; SOMEONE ELSE MIGHT.&nbsp; Why do you insist that this tool that people have used for 30 years - even with mixed results - is USELESS?&nbsp; Just because it is useless to YOU doesn't make it useless to everyone else as repeated testimony has shown.&nbsp;And this is badwrongfun and not to be tolerated in anyone elses game?&nbsp;In which case alignment is not really a problem for those players.&nbsp; Yet it's still there for players who are NOT into heavy roleplay or for some reason are incapable of it.&nbsp;&quot;Good&quot; isn't intended to be a descriptor of the sum total of someones actions, nor the beginning and end of their philosophy and religion.&nbsp; It's supposed to be a USEFUL descriptor, not an absolute one.&nbsp;Can you explain again why breaking down into clear camps of objective good and evil is not to be tolerated by anyone in a game of D&amp;D?&nbsp;You say that you like to use D&amp;D to explore morality.&nbsp; I say I like to play D&amp;D where morality is much less of a non-issue.&nbsp; You say alignment gets in the way of playing the game the way you like.&nbsp; I say alignment is of ASSISTANCE to myself and others in playing the game the way WE like.&nbsp; You suggest that alignment's in-game effects promotes a scenario where a DM creates morality traps.&nbsp; I suggest that a bad DM can and will do that with or without alignment.&nbsp;Alignment most certainly can be misused and abused by DM's and players alike.&nbsp; Still doesn't mean that it cannot be used legitimately and appropriately.&nbsp;And the scholarly wizard might just be looking at his own alignment when he makes that declaration.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Man in the Funny Hat, post: 4951017, member: 32740"] It is a well-noted drawback of alignment that it DOES require that the DM make his interpretations clear to the players before alignment becomes an issue in-game. And once again, alignment may say nothing to YOU about a character, but I and many others have been using alignment without great difficulties to do just that for about 30 years now. Your insistence that it is not useful in this regard is therefore a demonstrable UNTRUTH. Nothing about alignment - with the unfortunate exception of those elements which are tied directly to in-game effects - dictates that a player MUST use it to guide his characters choices. I can put NG on my character sheet at the time of creation and never consider it again. If the DM has any smarts he'll never make an issue of whether my character conforms to any precise "definition" of NG. As long as my character is portrayed reasonably and with reasonable consistency his alignment does indeed serve ME, the player, no particular purpose. On the other hand, I might use that alignment as a CONSTANT reference to assist me in deciding why my character takes or refrains from certain actions. Prof. T. might not have needed alignment to help him create Gandalf. SOMEONE ELSE MIGHT. Why do you insist that this tool that people have used for 30 years - even with mixed results - is USELESS? Just because it is useless to YOU doesn't make it useless to everyone else as repeated testimony has shown. And this is badwrongfun and not to be tolerated in anyone elses game? In which case alignment is not really a problem for those players. Yet it's still there for players who are NOT into heavy roleplay or for some reason are incapable of it. "Good" isn't intended to be a descriptor of the sum total of someones actions, nor the beginning and end of their philosophy and religion. It's supposed to be a USEFUL descriptor, not an absolute one. Can you explain again why breaking down into clear camps of objective good and evil is not to be tolerated by anyone in a game of D&D? You say that you like to use D&D to explore morality. I say I like to play D&D where morality is much less of a non-issue. You say alignment gets in the way of playing the game the way you like. I say alignment is of ASSISTANCE to myself and others in playing the game the way WE like. You suggest that alignment's in-game effects promotes a scenario where a DM creates morality traps. I suggest that a bad DM can and will do that with or without alignment. Alignment most certainly can be misused and abused by DM's and players alike. Still doesn't mean that it [I]cannot[/I] be used legitimately and appropriately. And the scholarly wizard might just be looking at his own alignment when he makes that declaration. [/QUOTE]

Verification